If you didn’t know any better, you’d think Nancy Pelosi was a local Georgia politician given that her name or photo appeared on numerous mailers and political ads this cycle. Given that, let’s talk about whether she should remain leader of the House Dems. The NY Times thinks not.

What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

Completely agree. Pelosi, for all the good she’s done in getting bills through the House, has not been a great communicator. Dems are the minority party now and what we need is someone who can effectively talk about why the policies of the new Republican Majority is not what this country needs.

 

7 Responses to A New Leader for the House Dems?

  1. Matt says:

    Better Pelosi than a Blue Dog.

  2. Stefan says:

    it was always a bad idea to have her representing the majority. she makes a better minority leader, but it would strike the wrong tone here. the 23 blue dogs who lost their jobs in november lost due in no small part to her tone deafness.

  3. Julez says:

    Looks like they’ve postponed the election of leadership till Dec.

    Lots of politicking will go on till then.

  4. Drew says:

    Now that the Democratic Party is in the minority in the House, it’s even more important to have a strong, proven leader so that the party is unified and effective in its use of the limited power it has. If they want a better communicator, they can pick the most telegenic of their members and have them parrot whatever their communications team says.

    But then I am more and more skeptical of how much good better communication would do. How many Democrats would still be in office today if the electorate understood perfectly the impact of the stimulus, the health care bill, and the wall street reform bill, but still faced the current level of unemployment? More, I suppose, but probably not anywhere near a majority.

  5. Cameron Roberts says:

    Going to have to disagree with you on this one. She seemed to do a great job leading us as a minority from 2003-2006. Her inability to communicate didn’t inhibit us from taking the majority then, so unless there is something substantial different this time then I’m not too worried about it. Further, the need for a communicator is lessened by having a Dem. President.

    • Tony says:

      Her inability to communicate didn’t inhibit us from taking the majority then

      This statement suggests that Democrats actually did something to take the majority in 2006. All they did was be not the party of George W. Bush.

      • Jen B. says:

        True. And the Dems may recapture the House in 2012 because the Republicans failed to make good on their promises and/or failed to present any solutions and merely acted as the party of No.

        Further, the need for a communicator is lessened by having a Dem. President.

        That’s a fair point. And I think Obama be more out and about over the next two years since he’s up for re-election and will have to deal with the Republicans. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful to put a different face on the House Democrats. It’s not like there isn’t a precedent for the leadership to change when a party has suffered a great loss of seats.